About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
, which is also the problem of pakistan, becomes a regional problem in which the country's in the region have a stake in solving and are not -- there's a reasonable chance that can be pulled off. >> dr. brzezinski, you mentioned pakistan. the focus of policy leaders. turning away from afghanistan, we got reports the journalist who was killed by the isi inside pakistan further out is complicating our relationship with that group. we announced going in to kill osama bin laden. how do we manage this relationship that's been difficult to manage for as far as the eye can see? >> well, first of all, we have to recognize we are dealing here with two sifrl conflicts. one in afghanistan and the one in pakistan. there's a conflict in pakistan. there isn't a foreign intervention trying to resolve it. it is a great internal conflict. what we are seeing in pakistan is a series of contradictory policies, contradictory engagements and contradictory engagements. the army wants to preserve a stable pakistan that is assured of security and sees the united states as a component of the success in that quest
of pakistan that will bring success to local areas. a country from kabul, it will never happen. we are wasting time and money. the fact we are leaving may assist in the development of stability in local areas. they will never be a centrally governed pakistan, i mean afghanistan. afghanistan is not like iraq. give me one more second and i'll tell you what i think is going to happen in iraq. we'll probably go back to having one bloodthirsty tyrant to rule the country. that's the irony of iraq. >> happy days, wes. >> afghanistan is extraordinarily tribal. it's difficult to have a conversation about afghanistan. one story i loved was one of the things we did in afghanistan when i was working with the civil affairs team, giving out flags to children and local leaders. they would look at the flag and say what is this. you would have to explain, it's your country. there's another thing, i think you brought up a good point, joe. afghanistan is not iraq. you are right. there's a crucial player, though that factors in. that's iran. iran is not only very active and involved, but in addition to that, iran
as well. pat. >> dr. brzezinski, let me talk to you about pakistan. powers flu out, richard nixon tilted, doctor brzezinski was over there looking down the pass. they were a great ally in the cold war. now it looks like we have lost pakistan. have we lost pakistan? if so, why and was it inevitable. >> i think we are losing pakistan. i don't know if we have lost it yet. if we disengage intelligently and engage in the umbrella i have been talking about, her happens we will lose it all together. i think the fault is two way. first of all, we have never been really consistently and comprehensively sensitive to the political interests in having a secure backyard in afghanistan. we just haven't. resently, we played with indi s indians. we give a super nuclear deal to the indians. we did not give it to the pakistanis. there's resentment there. pakistan is coming undone on its own. it's not all our undoing. there's a conflict between the army and society at large. divisions between the army and the military and intelligence. ethnic differences. regional differences in pakistan. plus, this overw
.s. troops in afghanistan. this report out of the "new york times" says the aid could resume if pakistan takes tougher action against the taliban as well as al qaeda. meanwhile, defense secretary leon panetta is in afghanistan as i was mentioning. panetta is meeting with american military leaders as well as afghan officials. atia abawi is in kabul, afghanistan. he's making strong remarks when it comes to al qaeda and how he wants to continue stamping them out. >> reporter: good morning, thomas. that's absolutely right. on his flight from d.c. to kabul he did speak to reporter on the plane that he was on about al qaeda and said that the strategic defeat of al qaeda was within reach, pointing to the death of osama bin laden, pointing to the information that we were able to retrieve from his compound, including the names of key leaders that they'd like to go after. and he says that this is the time to go after al qaeda. let's listen to what he had to say. >> now is the moment following what happened with bin laden to put maximum pressure on them. because i do believe that if we continue thi
and fighters to the bases in pakistan and afghanistan. let's get to part of what the "wall street journal" said. the quote reads they outlined what they said was a fund-raising operation that uses iran-based operatives and draws from donors in persian gulf companies. the treasury said they sanctioned six for allegedly overseeing this network. >> how concerned are you when you hear this report and what does this mean? >> it's difficult to understand at first. you look at what happens and you see militias confronting al qaeda and a lot of people die. it's difficult to imagine the allies. what's amazing is there has been evidence and through other sources that does tend to confirm the fact that iran is a major location from money laundering and cross transit into afghanistan. it is operating as a portal for the taliban and al qaeda. why is iran doing this? probably not for idea logical reasons. they wanted to reach a deal and ever since then they have been holding this issue. there have been high ranking members that are allowed to live in iran. the question is what games do they want to play? >>
they be in yemen, somalia, pakistan or north and central africa. but on this trip in afghanistan panetta is expected to meet with his counterpart, the defense ministry in afghanistan, and he is also expected to have a press conference with the afghan president, hamid karzai. aside from that, the most important part of the visit is talking to the u.s. commanders on the ground here in afghanistan, talking to the u.s. servicemen and women as well who are fighting the fight within the country. right now the strategic time within the war and afghanistan, the president announced the withdrawal plan by the end of this year. 10,000 americans are supposed to leave the country by the end of next year. he's hoping another $23,000 by next year. right now the time for secretary panetta to talk to the commanders here, to the afghan government here, to see how to transition the authority they have in afghanistan back to the afghan people. >> do you think the key to targeting al qaeda is all the information taken from osama bin ladin's compound on may 2nd? >> reporter: well, that's the big question. did
and then there will be a social crisis, and then a political crisis. then right across the world pakistan has got concerns about the loss of aid and the impact that this would have on fighting terror. israel is worried about the position of the u.s. and the world that if the u.s. is weak at this point, then countries leak iran will start to feel emboldened. here in the us u.k. they're saying that internal u.s. political wrangling are pose aing real threat to the world's financial systems, alex. >>> it is a word president obama has been using repeatedly in the battle over raising the debt limit, but are enough lawmakers on capitol hill heeding his advice? we'll have the latest from the white house next on msnbc saturday. >> what's clear now is that any solution to avoid default must be bipartisan. it must have the support of both parties that we're sent here to represent the american people. not just one faction. the time for putting party first is over. the time for compromise on behalf of the american people is now. i am confident that we can solve this problem. i'm confident that we will solve this problem.
of the wars in afghanistan and pakistan. >> still not getting serious. >> i went away from fuzzy. >> is that like jerry at trick math? >> yes. >> are you surprised they don't have a deal today? i actually really -- i mean, i really thought -- >> i would be shocked if they don't have a deal in the next two or three days. again, republican freshmen may have a big ideology difference with barack obama and his world view, and the divide is no greater than ronald reagan's was with tip o'neal in 1983 when they sat down, and they did a kneel. yes, you differ with barack obama and the democrats, but -- >> usually you are good at seeing somebody's angle. like you know what their angle was. what is the angle here? i don't get it. >> these republicans believe this is their only opportunity -- >> are they so stuck to the contract with the tea party they cannot think outside the box for the good of the country? seriously? >> can i finish? you asked a question and i need to finish. they understand one thing. >> what do they understand? >> they are dead right about this. this is their best chan
lethal and could become explosive. >> pakistan. >> it is. harold ford, make no mistake of it. i saw this as a small government conservative. i say this as a free market capitalist. i will tell you a lot of people who voted for pat buchan nab two times for president would agree with me here that if you have hedge fund managers pays significantly less in taxes, our secretaries, our schoolteachers, if you have the largest corporations on the planet paying 0% in u.s. taxes, that is going to cause eventually social unrest. that's not a democratic issue or a republican issue. >> that's a problem. >> global financial institutions including imf made clear -- this challenge, unemployment and the growing disparity are the greatest threats. the question i have for dr. brzenszki, this morning, what advice would you have to achieve the most articulate and succinct frame -- i heard your frame of it, why we find ousts in this mess, the kind of shared sacrifi sacrifice. a week away from it. how do you do it, doctor. >> i think the majority in this country which involves moderate and responsible rep
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)